Can we please get single minded fury back.

[therealstegblob]

Historical Berserkers didn't dual wield either. Generally they used a shield and a weapon, which could be a spear, short sword, or a axe.

Yes they did. Dual-wielding is actually very common in IRL sources. A lot of viking-types would fight using a hook axe (an axe with an enlongated beard) and a straight shortsword, using the axe like a man-catcher to hook their opponents and then stabbing them.

[Zenny]

Yes they did. Dual-wielding is actually very common in IRL sources. A lot of viking-types would fight using a hook axe (an axe with an enlongated beard) and a straight shortsword, using the axe like a man-catcher to hook their opponents and then stabbing them.

Dual-wielding in large scale warfare is very rare. It features in several martial arts and fencing duels, but that is quite different from open combat. Even then, it's usually a combination of a rapier and a parrying dagger.

Now there are references to Vikings dual wielding weapons in battle, but the number of weapon+shield combinations far outstrip them. Almost all references to Viking Berserker weaponry makes note of them utilizing shields.

men rushed forwards without armour, were as mad as dogs or wolves, bit their shields, and were strong as bears or wild oxen, and killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon them.

... a demoniacal frenzy suddenly took him; he furiously bit and devoured the edges of his shield; he kept gulping down fiery coals; he snatched live embers in his mouth and let them pass down into his entrails; he rushed through the perils of crackling fires; and at last, when he had raved through every sort of madness, he turned his sword with raging hand against the hearts of six of his champions. It is doubtful whether this madness came from thirst for battle or natural ferocity.

[therealstegblob]

Dual-wielding in large scale warfare is very rare. It features in several martial arts and fencing duels, but that is quite different from open combat. Even then, it's usually a combination of a rapier and a parrying dagger.

Now there are references to Vikings dual wielding weapons in battle, but the number of weapon+shield combinations far outstrip them. Almost all references to Viking Berserker weaponry makes note of them utilizing shields.

Wow poetic sources, nice. Not to mention "large scale warfare"? Where did I say anything about large scale warfare? Get the fuck outta here lol.

We're done here.

[Zenny]

Wow poetic sources, nice. Not to mention "large scale warfare"? Where did I say anything about large scale warfare? Get the fuck outta here lol.

We're done here.

By far the most references we have about Viking Berserkers are from poetic sources. The very first historical reference to them is from the Hrafnsmál. The earliest depiction we have of them even has a Berserker biting his shield:



As for my comment on large scale warfare, we are referring to historical Berserkers here are we not? The same champion shock troopers that were deployed in war bands and battle? If you are referring to in general, dual wielding is basically only useful against lightly armored opponents, it is basically useless against someone wearing full plate and severely disadvantaged against someone with a shield. That's why most references to it are from martial arts or fencing sources.

[therealstegblob]

By far the most references we have about Viking Berserkers are from poetic sources. The very first historical reference to them is from the Hrafnsmál. The earliest depiction we have of them even has a Berserker biting his shield:

As for my comment on large scale warfare, we are referring to historical Berserkers here are we not? The same champion shock troopers that were deployed in war bands and battle? If you are referring to in general, dual wielding is basically only useful against lightly armored opponents, it is basically useless against someone wearing full plate and severely disadvantaged against someone with a shield. That's why most references to it are from martial arts or fencing sources.

And here we have a valuable computer chair warrior. Fought in a lot of armed melee, have you? Armor is actually incredible vulnerable to man-catchers, because it gives you more places to hook someone.

Bottom line is that while most men would've fought with shields, there were others who fought with two weapons at once. Tripped-out berserkers fighting with two weapons is a pretty classic representation of the fantasy, and history supports it. Your argument is "but they used shields too and maybe based on some poems I'm referencing it could have been primarily shields, as if that proves anything anyways!".

Good fight I guess.

[Zenny]

And here we have a valuable computer chair warrior. Fought in a lot of armed melee, have you?

I wasn't aware I needed to have armed melee experience in order to read historical sources and contemporary accounts from experts in the field. When was the last time you fought in a real medieval battle yourself?

Armor is actually incredible vulnerable to man-catchers, because it gives you more places to hook someone.

What's this got to do with dual-wielding? That being said, the historical references to man-catchers generally indicate it was to capture people, but generally did not see much use on the battlefield.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...-1820/TL.0151/

Bottom line is that while most men would've fought with shields, there were others who fought with two weapons at once. Tripped-out berserkers fighting with two weapons is a pretty classic representation of the fantasy, and history supports it. Your argument is "but they used shields too and maybe based on some poems I'm referencing it could have been primarily shields, as if that proves anything anyways!".

History certainly doesn't support it, but you were spot on in calling it a fantasy. And the poems I am referencing are the primary sources on Viking Berserkers. Almost all information we get is from the Sagas of Icelanders, which has two references to dual wielding, and much, much more that don't. What sources are you referencing?
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti.../text/arms.htm

Good fight I guess.

I wasn't aware we were having one.

[therealstegblob]

I wasn't aware I needed to have armed melee experience in order to read historical sources and contemporary accounts from experts in the field. When was the last time you fought in a real medieval battle yourself?

You've quoted a couple poems that just mention "they used shields". No shit shields were used, that doesn't disprove that dual wielding happened often IRL.

What's this got to do with dual-wielding? That being said, the historical references to man-catchers generally indicate it was to capture people, but generally did not see much use on the battlefield.

That's a pole form of man-catchers. They weren't used in battle, they were used to stop armed criminals or perpetrators or anyone armed with a weapon. "Man-catcher" can generally apply to any form of hook, curved blade or beard axe that was in part used to hook onto an enemy and tug them downwards.

It has a lot to do with dual wielding weapons. You hook with your axe, stab with your skewer.

History certainly doesn't support it

You're right, no one ever fought with two weapons at once it just didn't happen. The poems said shields!

You mentioned large-scale warfare before (asspulling it to support your point even though I never said anything about dual wielding concerning large battles). In a large 'war' battle, you wouldn't have many people dual wielding anything because you give up using a shield or a spear or polearm, so it's generally just a disadvantage either way. Against single enemies or unarmed enemies, your second weapon acts as something to catch them or their weapon (fencing blades and daggers come to mind as a much more observable historical source). As I mentioned before, hooks catch armor just as well as skin (and there aren't going to be many fully plate armored men fighting on foot, anyways).

The fantasy, and history, of an angry guy fighting with two weapons is certainly true. Rushing into mounted battle in a large-scale battle? No, but you're the one who brought that up because your argument was failing without bringing up something I never made reference to.

I wasn't aware we were having one.

You don't seem like you're aware of a lot of things.

[Zenny]

You've quoted a couple poems that just mention "they used shields". No shit shields were used, that doesn't disprove that dual wielding happened often IRL.

I quoted Viking sagas and poems as those are the primary sources. Do you have a source that is not?

That's a pole form of man-catchers. They weren't used in battle, they were used to stop armed criminals or perpetrators or anyone armed with a weapon. "Man-catcher" can generally apply to any form of hook, curved blade or beard axe that was in part used to hook onto an enemy and tug them downwards.

It has a lot to do with dual wielding weapons. You hook with your axe, stab with your skewer.

All references I can find refer to man-catchers refer to them being pole arms that are utilized to subdue someone by putting it around the neck. Sure, a beard axe can be used to pull down a shield but I don't believe it should fall under the label man-catcher. Even then, the bearded axe usefulness in one on one combat is suspect, as if you were not in a shield wall you generally would point the shield edge first at your opponent, like so:

This would allow you to strike your opponent or turn his own shield away:


The bearded axe would be useful to pull a shield away from a defensive opponent (in say, a shield wall) and allow another attacker to strike at them.

You're right, no one ever fought with two weapons at once it just didn't happen. The poems said shields!

Don't put words in my mouth, I stated that dual-wielding did occur, but the references to it are much rarer then the shield+weapon combination. No references to Berserkers dual-wielding exist, which again, doesn't necessarily mean that it did not happen at all, just that it was comparatively rarer then using a shield.

You mentioned large-scale warfare before (asspulling it to support your point even though I never said anything about dual wielding concerning large battles). In a large 'war' battle, you wouldn't have many people dual wielding anything because you give up using a shield or a spear or polearm, so it's generally just a disadvantage either way. Against single enemies or unarmed enemies, your second weapon acts as something to catch them or their weapon (fencing blades and daggers come to mind as a much more observable historical source). As I mentioned before, hooks catch armor just as well as skin (and there aren't going to be many fully plate armored men fighting on foot, anyways).

I made the distinction between large battlefields and dueling as dual wielding references are generally found in martial arts or fencing, with the usage on the battlefield appears to be much rarer. Either way, the usage thereof certainly wasn't common.

The fantasy, and history, of an angry guy fighting with two weapons is certainly true.

Did some people fight with two weapons? Yes. Was it common outside of some martial arts and fencing practices? No. Was it common among Vikings? No. Are there specific references to Viking Berserkers doing it? No. Is it possible some rare Berserkers fought like that? Yes.

Rushing into mounted battle in a large-scale battle? No, but you're the one who brought that up because your argument was failing without bringing up something I never made reference to.

I never once mentioned mounted combat. I mentioned battlefields and open warfare, because that's generally what you talk about when referring to Viking Berserkers.

You don't seem like you're aware of a lot of things.

I was actually hoping you would actually debate the point properly, and not resort to petty insults.

[Holofernes]

That sure is funny. For some reason. I guess? Dumbest post I've read in a while.

u need to smoke more

[Deleted]

Fury is like Barbarian from Diablo 2! Dual-wielding those 2-Handers like it's nobody's business! RAWR!

[lummiuster]

No. The size of the weapons a warrior wields is the factor that shows how big his dick is. Removing it would ruin the class fantasy of being a huge membered dude charging somewhere.

[Jastall]

Wow poetic sources, nice. Not to mention "large scale warfare"? Where did I say anything about large scale warfare? Get the fuck outta here lol.

We're done here.

Given that almost every single reference we have to berserkers even existing in the first place come from poetic sources, just like the majority of the information we have on the Vikings and Norse in general, shunning them is quite the puzzling tactic.

Suffice to say that dual wielding in real life was very rare, mostly intended for showing off and duels rather than battlefields, and never done in the way it is in the game, whenever with two-handed or one-handed weapons. When it was used, one weapon was made for striking, the other for parrying/grabbing/something else, they were not both used to attack at once. Then again, real life doesn't have dudes with shields that can block attacks from dragons a hundred times their size, or kung fun supermen that can punch through plate armor, or ninjas that can vanish in thin air, or hunters that can mind control, errr tame beasts in a few seconds, and I'm not even getting into magic users.

[Hoeth]

Bad thing is most 1-handers in this game sheath on the hips and look ridiculous considering their size. That the problem I have with my frost DK and there are only ~5 or so decent looking transmogs that sheath on the back.

[RenDefiance]

I would just like it as a xmog option if they dont want to balance the stat differneces from 1 handers vs 2 handers,,,, especially since I prefer 1H models

[Gungnir]

The few references to dualwielding in regards to viking culture usually didn't have them use both weapons for attacking at the same time.
One was the actual weapon you used and the other had a use in allowing you to land those hits. There were also a lot more references to sword + shield anyway.

Ontopic; I sorely wish we got Single-Minded Fury back, but I dont think that will ever happen.